Atma Ram Budhia vs State Of Bihar on 8 May, 1952
and a decision of this Court in 'LIQUIDATORS PURSA LTD. v, INCOME TAX OFFICER', AIR 1952 Pat 106. I have already shown that the Act and the rules framed thereunder complement and supplement each other and fully bring out the meaning of the statute and the purpose for which it has been framed. It is true that the principle of necessary intendment should not be ordinarily extended to taxing statutes and where the question only is whether a particular item of property has or has not been taxed, the Act must expressly and unequivocally supply the answer. Where, however, as in this case, the 'vires' of the statute itself is being assailed and it is said that the statute is beyond the legislative competence of the State, the rules can be certainly called in aid in order to understand the scheme and purpose of the legislation. The first issue, therefore, must be answered in favour of the defendant, and it must be held that it was no1 beyond the legislative competence of the state Legislature to impose the tax by Part III of the Bihar Finance Act, 1950.